john9blue wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:No, that's bullshit because this is a property rights issue based on contract law. You don't lose your right to your own property because you accidentally gave someone extra money with the implied understanding that the extra money which was given was not intentional. See my 2nd response
here for an example.
Let's all sit in a room and decide who suffers the least when we take their money. How's that sound? "Hey, J9B, it's only a dollar, so shut up and give it to us."
There's no legitimate contract here. Property rights have to be respected; otherwise, you can justify all sorts of involuntary and/or dishonest/fraudulent exchanges.
i'm not trying to say that taking money or property that isn't yours is ever perfectly morally acceptable. i also never said that the person who accidentally gave the money lost their right to it.
i thought we were talking about the extent of the punishment that this guy should receive? shouldn't that be decide by the harm inflicted on the victims of the theft? it's not just about the monetary value of the theft... that's why a man who robs a gas station at gunpoint for $100 will go to jail for years, but an executive who embezzles millions from some other rich people will go for a few months, if that.
Oh, I see. ANyway!
Harm matters, but so does intent.
For example, if you ask the gambler, "why did you think that you somehow had 1.5 million?", then after an extensive questioning it would likely become obvious that at some point, this gambler knew that the money was not his. So, after some point beyond making an honest mistake, we can reasonably assume that the gambler was knowingly using money which was not his. Of course, that's not as overt as robbing a convenience store, but it's still theft.
john9blue wrote:that's why a man who robs a gas station at gunpoint for $100 will go to jail for years, but an executive who embezzles millions from some other rich people will go for a few months, if that.
In my opinion, the primary cause for this discrepancy lies in the legal resources which the accused can muster. It's also a product of the convulated nature of the legal code, but we digress.
Another important factor is culpability (see wiki page, section: at law). It mentions acting purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. The gambler (I assume) at some point, knowingly used money which was not his; however, a case could be made that BoA was acting negligently (assuming that they had no effective safeguards to prevent this from happening). So, it's not just harm that matters, but intent (and obligation/duty) as well--however, that may be shown in court.
RE: the gambler, it does go back to implied consent. If his defense argues that the gambler simply acted this way because the money in his account was assumed to be his," then BoA could counter with an implied consent argument, e.g. "if the bank makes a mistake as significant as $1.5 mil, then it should be understood between both parties that the money is still not the recipient's." For all I know, this instance could already be covered explicitly in the contract the gambler signed when creating his bank account with BoA.
thought we were talking about the extent of the punishment that this guy should receive? shouldn't that be decide by the harm inflicted on the victims of the theft?
As far as punishment is concerned, I'm in favor of restitution and against criminal prosecution. Having the gambler serve X amount of years in prison doesn't benefit anyone, nor does it serve as an effective threat deterrent against future mistakes like this one. With restitution, the issue would be resolved between the two parties, but not the state with its self-serving laws which "necessitate" its supply of prisons. The amount of harm would factor in, but as already mentioned, there's other factors which are also important.
